17:39
Articles & Videos
All PoliticsPolicyEconomyCivil RightsJusticeInternationalConflict & SecurityClimate & EnvironmentTechnologyHealthMediaCulture & Society
Here’s How Many Times Trump Is Mentioned in New Epstein Files
Donald Trump was mentioned more than 38,000 times in the latest batch of Epstein files, according to a New York Times review of the Justice Department’s Friday public release of some three million pages from the sprawling investigation into child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.The references include documents pertaining to Trump, his wife Melania, and their residence in Florida, Mar-a-Lago.The president’s name appears in an FBI tip sheet several times in abuse allegations, including one in which an unknown source accuses Trump of forcing one of Epstein’s victims, presumed to be 13 or 14 years old, to perform oral sex on him, “approximately 35 years ago” in New Jersey.Other mentions are bizarre, such as a censored image that is very clearly of the president, sparking concerns about how far the DOJ actually went to conceal Trump’s connection to Epstein. The photograph came up in an exchange between Epstein and Trump’s first term chief strategist, Steve Bannon, though the widely circulated image was not incriminating in and of itself.Meanwhile, the agency neglected to redact nude images of young women in the files, some of whom may have been teenagers at the time.All in all, Trump was flagged in more than 5,300 files in the document cache, according to the Times.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told CNN’s State of the Union Sunday that the DOJ reviewed the files last summer but did not find credible evidence against the president warranting further investigation.“There’s a lot of correspondence, there’s a lot of emails, there’s a lot of photographs—there’s a lot of horrible photographs that appear to be taken by Mr. Epstein or people around him, but that doesn’t allow us necessarily to prosecute somebody,” Blanche said, noting that the public now has the opportunity to “see if we got it wrong.” The Trump administration revealed on Friday that it would only release half of the Epstein files, blatantly violating the recently passed law that required the documents’ full release some six weeks ago and sparking concerns about a governmental cover-up.
Trump’s DOJ Somehow Forgets to Redact Nude Photos in Epstein Files
In its latest release of files relating to Jeffrey Epstein, the Department of Justice included several unredacted nude photos of young women, some of whom may have been underage when the photos were taken.The government is required by law to redact sensitive information and images in the Epstein files before releasing them, especially regarding anything that could identify victims. When The New York Times reviewed the latest files, however, they found 40 nude photographs of at least seven different people, with their faces visible.The women in the photos could have been minors, as the Times could not confirm their identities or ages. Some appeared to have been taken at Epstein’s private island, Little Saint James in the U.S. Virgin Islands, while others simply showed bedrooms and other private spaces. The publication initially notified the DOJ on Saturday of the images, flagging more of them on Sunday.The images flagged by the Times have since been removed or redacted. A DOJ spokesperson said that the department was “working around the clock to address any victim concerns, additional redactions of personally identifiable information, as well as any files that require further redactions under the act, to include images of a sexual nature.”“Once proper redactions have been made, any responsive documents will repopulate online,” the spokesperson said.The Trump administration remembered to redact a picture of Donald Trump that appeared in a text message conversation between Epstein and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. But somehow, it neglected a particularly sensitive set of photos and directly violated the law that mandated the release of the Epstein files, half of which still have yet to be made public.One of Epstein’s abuse victims, Annie Farmer, called the news of the unredacted images “extremely disturbing.”“It’s hard to imagine a more egregious way of not protecting victims than having full nude images of them available for the world to download,” Farmer told the Times on Sunday.
Let's Take Another Look at the Latest Epstein Files Dump
And all the king's horses and (almost) all the king's men all get a mention.
16:55
IHIP News: 🚨 Epstein Files NIGHTMARE Drop for TRUMP! He's Getting BLACKMAILED?!
Justice Department Tries to Redact Trump’s Face in Epstein Files
The Department of Justice made a lame attempt to cover up Donald Trump’s face in a photo in the latest trove of Jeffery Epstein files. The photo appears to be of Trump making a speech at an event. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon sent it in a text message to Epstein in 2019. In it, a small portion of Trump’s head, including his ear, are still visible next to a black box covering the rest of his face. Why attempt to cover up this photo? On its own, it doesn’t incriminate Trump in any of Epstein’s crimes, and previous file releases have already established that Bannon and Epstein had a long correspondence. It seems as though it was an attempt to conceal Trump, although he is still identifiable underneath the black box. The rest of the files contain multiple references to Trump, his Mar-a-Lago estate, and his family members. They also contain interviews with Epstein’s victims, some of whom refer to the president. The government has only released half of its total Epstein records, despite being required by law to release all unclassified files by six weeks ago. Trump continues to deny a close relationship with the convicted sex trafficker, despite mountains of evidence that one existed. It seems that the DOJ and Attorney General Pam Bondi are assisting the president in trying to minimize the obvious.
Is Tulsi Gabbard Stalling a Giant Whistleblower Complaint Against Her?
A whistleblower’s lawyer accused Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard of burying their client’s complaint about her, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday. In a letter sent to Gabbard’s office in November, attorney Andrew Bakaj accused the director of preventing a complaint detailing her wrongdoing from reaching lawmakers. The complaint, which was originally filed with the intelligence community’s inspector general in May, is so highly classified that Bakaj himself has not been able to review it. Typically, an employee is able to share a complaint alleging wrongdoing directly with lawmakers, as long as the director of national intelligence instructs them on how to securely transmit it. But months after the complaint was originally filed, it reportedly remains locked away in a safe, a person familiar with the matter told the Journal. “From my experience, it is confounding for [Gabbard’s office] to take weeks—let alone eight months—to transmit a disclosure to Congress,” said Bakaj in a statement. In addition to accusing Gabbard of wrongdoing, the complaint reportedly implicates “an office within a different federal agency” and raises potential claims of executive privilege, officials told the Journal. One official warned that disclosure of the complaint could cause “grave damage to national security.”The intelligence community’s inspector general determined that the specific allegations against Gabbard weren’t credible, but it could not make a determination about the other claims, according to a representative for the federal watchdog. Bakaj said he was never informed that any determination was reached. Last week, Gabbard was spotted lurking around a federal raid at the Fulton County, Georgia, election office. Having been completely sidelined from the typical responsibilities of the director of national intelligence, Gabbard has apparently spent months leading an investigation into President Donald Trump’s baseless claims about the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Transcript: Trump ICE Rants Get Truly Weird as Crushing Fox Poll Hits
The following is a lightly edited transcript of the February 2 episode of the Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent. Donald Trump seems to be in deep denial about how unpopular his ICE raids have become. He let out a long, strange, rambling tirade to reporters about how the “silent majority” is still behind what ICE is doing. He also lied uncontrollably about the protesters, about crime in Minneapolis, and much more. Interestingly, this comes as a poll from none other than Fox News just delivered Trump some very bad news on this front. It finds that even his base voters are turning against ICE in a big way as well. Are we in the middle of a watershed moment on public opinion when it comes to immigration? We’re talking about this with Lia Parada, an immigration advocate who’s worked on these issues for a long time and now represents groups losing their status under Trump. Lia, nice to have you on. Lia Parada: Thanks for having me on, Greg. Sargent: All right. So let’s first listen to this really strange rant from Trump. Donald Trump (voiceover): We’ll say it very plainly, elections have consequences. The people want law and order. And we have a silent majority. You know, we have a silent majority of people. They don’t go and riot and everything else, but they like what we’re doing. They like having a safe city. I get calls every single day. Every person I see working in the White House, people I don’t know—many people work here—and they say, ‘I’d like to thank you, sir, you’ve made Washington so great. We walk to work.’ They walk to work. Every person in his building. I mean, virtually every time I see somebody, they thank me because a year and a half ago they lived in hell and now they can walk to work and they’re totally safe. Nothing’s going to happen.Sargent: Lia, let’s start with the funny part first. Trump actually says that “the people in the building” compliment what he’s doing for D.C.—meaning the people who work in the White House. And he presents this as if it means something in terms of public opinion. That’s pretty wild, isn’t it?Parada: Yeah, we’re really grasping at straws here for public opinion when you’re citing the support of your court—of the “King’s Court”—to say that he’s on the right side of this.Sargent: Yeah, I mean, these are people who spend all day every day sucking up to him and manipulating him. And so he actually thinks it means something for them to say, Sir, you’ve done a wonderful job cleaning up D.C.; I can now walk to work, sir.Note that Trump there also floated this idea that the “silent majority” is behind the ICE raids. But it’s clear that some inside the White House political operation are telling Trump, Sorry, sir, you’ve lost the public on this, sir. Yet it looks like he and Miller do still believe this. What do you make of that, Lia?Parada: I really think that this is what they have left to justify a strategy that they are completely locked into. He has locked himself into this position; he has locked arms with Stephen Miller. This was a key part of his campaign—we all saw the “Mass Deportation Now” posters—and then his signature legislation awarded this agency more money than most militaries of other countries. And so they are desperate to justify what is happening right now. And they are seeing that the “vocal majority” are 100 percent against what they’re saying. Sargent: I think that’s a critical point that we should dwell on a sec. They are locked into this in the sense that they have gotten Congress to appropriate truly enormous sums of money for this operation. And that is now being spent. They’re scaling up ICE in a major way. They’re buying—who knows what the hell—equipment, weaponry?They’re talking about buying warehouses now to put people in detention, even though right now the detention system is absolutely maxed out at, I think, over 60,000. This is something that is becoming kind of a non-controllable carceral state—a real kind of juggernaut that can’t really be controlled anymore. And I think they’re on the verge of losing control of this. It reminds me a little bit of what happened with the buildup of the War on Terror bureaucracy under George W. Bush. Does that sound right to you?Parada: That sounds exactly right. This is a runaway train. They have lost control. Even when Trump tries to be surgical in enforcement actions, that is not what happens on the ground. And by doing so, they’re organizing the opposition. This police state is actually creating opposition. I wouldn’t even say across party lines; I’d say regardless of party lines.I just met with some organizers in Roxbury, New Jersey, where a town council of all Republicans stood up and said that they were opposing the warehouse being opened up there. And then in Hanover, in Virginia—everything is frozen in Virginia right now; I can barely get out of my driveway—literally hundreds of people turned out to a town council meeting. And the vote out of the town council in a really deep-red part of Virginia was that, no, they do not want the warehouse.And so the videos that—I don’t know what the administration thought they would accomplish by taping all of the abuses—but by doing so, they are turning people against what is happening because it’s no longer viewed as reasonable or “law and order.” It is like a terrifying police state that no one thinks they are safe under.Sargent: Just to be clear for listeners, you’re talking here about these warehouses that ICE is now scaling up. There’s one in Jersey, one in Virginia that you’re saying that local town councils oppose.Parada: Yes. And these are like majority-Republican town councils. Sargent: Yeah, that’s fascinating. And in fact, that brings me to the new Fox News poll, which finds that 59 percent of voters say that ICE is being “too aggressive” in its deportations. And get this: 71 percent of independents say the same.55 percent of overall voters disapprove of Trump on immigration, versus 45 percent who approve. That puts him 10 points underwater. And again, 71 percent of independents disapprove. That’s really something. Lia, you’ve been following public opinion on immigration for a long time. This seems a little like something new, doesn’t it?Parada: Absolutely. And I was working as an advocate during family separation under the first Trump administration, and I really thought that that was the most—the highest, most impactful watershed moment. And I really think that we haven’t reached the heights of what opposition will look like, just because we know that they are not going to stop what they’re doing.And everyday Americans are actually now paying attention because—I mean, whether you’re talking about the Second Amendment or “big government,” which is typically a Republican/independent talking point, that’s been thrown into this conversation. So we’re talking about sick children in abusive detention conditions, American veteran nurses being shot in broad daylight, broadcast all over social media—and they haven’t even spent a fraction of the funds that they have to carry out this, this overall agenda.Sargent: Right. It’s going to get bigger. I was absolutely shocked when I looked at these additional numbers in the Fox poll: 50 percent of rural whites say ICE is too aggressive, and 55 percent of whites without a college degree say the same. That’s reaching very deep into Trump’s base.Lia, we’ve been told for a long time that Democrats need to understand that immigration is a big reason they’re losing working-class voters, particularly white ones. But here they’re turning on Trump over immigration. Now, I get that part of this is a passing reaction to the horrors we’re seeing in the news and all that, but it sure looks like there’s an opening for Democrats to reach out to these voters on this. Do you think there’s an opening like that? And what should Democrats do? Parada: There’s an opening, and there’s always been an opening. I think that really in the past, what Democrats have failed to do is really understand the nuance of the issue. I am not surprised to hear that rural voters are against what’s happening. You know what’s also in rural America? Farmworkers who are people of faith that they go to church with. Immigrants are a part of our nation, a part of our community. And so when they see things happening to their neighbors, they recoil against it.What—I really think that the balanced approach on immigration is really where most of America is at. They want to see secure borders. They want to understand that there is a lawful, reasonable process for folks. So they don’t want to see the process—the system—being taken advantage of, whether it is children and families being disappeared or seemingly quote-unquote “open borders.”And so this is a huge opportunity for Democrats. And I hope that they won’t take this moment and ... think that they are just going to win a short-term messaging battle and move on to other issues. They will fight for solutions that matter. As a Latina who worked really hard in these last few electoral cycles, I had calls where it’s like, Don’t come to me with that immigration reform talk about Democrats; no one believes that that’s something that they care about. They only use it as a talking point when elections come around. And so this is a challenge for Democrats to take this moment seriously—to really understand what the opposition is about. You can’t just retweet something and walk away and not come back to the issue. They truly have to invest in the solutions and, like, organizing around it as well.Sargent: Yeah. And I want to add here that I think that what Democrats need to be doing right now is taking this opportunity to say, “There’s another way to do this,” right? And that sort of entails saying something a lot more than just, “My God, paramilitary ICE officers are killing Americans and that’s horrible.”It also entails saying, “You know what? Mass deportations—Trump’s mass deportations—are a failure.” And I think Democrats can say that and say that what we need to be doing now is giving people who have lived in this country a long time, who don’t have a criminal record, who have jobs and so forth—giving them a way to get right with the law. There’s an opening to make that case now. And I want to hear that from Dems.Sargent: And you know, I was actually surprised to see—we all watched with bated breath what Senator Fetterman was going to say with this DHS funding debate. And he actually had a reasonable response, which is: I want to see ICE do what its job is, but I don’t want to see families harmed. And also, people who have been here for a long time should be on a pathway to citizenship.Which as of maybe two, three years ago, that was what the standard policy position was for Democrats. And they abandoned it to follow “border security” and honestly just fell into the Republicans’ trap.Parada: Well, just so listeners understand where this is coming from, Senator Fetterman has been extremely disappointing to a lot of Democrats because he seems to be lurching to the right in many ways. And so for him to be saying that is a real statement. He’s the Pennsylvania senator; he does pretty well in rural areas. And for him to say that a path to citizenship is the way forward for all these people rather than deportations is promising—and more Democrats need to say that.Parada: And it’s really important that they do that because we can’t just—as you said—we can’t just respond to the moment that we’re in and leave it at that and hope that public opinion will shape itself. They have to lead the narrative and lead with solutions and start talking about: what is the opposite of mass deportation?What is the opposite of taking people who’ve been here a long time—whether they be DACA holders, TPS holders, some sort of semi-legal status. Rip them out of their communities and deport them? Or give them a process to come forward and be permanent members of our society and go through a process to make them U.S. citizens?That doesn’t exist now. And that is why we’re caught in the worst of all worlds. And we’re seeing what actually happens when America buys into what the far-right strategy is on immigration.Sargent: There is absolutely an opening to remake this case. So let’s listen to a little bit more of Trump. Donald Trump (voiceover): But do these people really want to have rapists? Do they really want to have drug dealers and people from prisons and murderers? Do they really want to have them in the community? You know, it’s really insurrectionists and agitators and they’re paid. And you can tell a lot of reasons. Some of them are professionals, you know, with their mouth. But they’re also, you look at the signs, the signs are all professionally made. They have signs that are gorgeous. In fact, I want to get the sign because I’m the big … I need a lot of signs for different things and I want to find out whoever does their signs, they do a beautiful job. You know, everybody has this beautiful sign with brand new wood. It’s like leather handles… they have a leather handle on the bottom.Sargent: What strikes me here is how they’re just running out of arguments. They just keep repeating over and over that everyone in Minneapolis is a criminal and that all the protesters are—it’s like they’re not even trying to win this argument anymore. It’s like they’ve basically given up on winning back the middle of the country on the issue. What do you make of that?Parada: I think it’s hilarious that he’s caught up on the “quality” of poster signs as his response to the very real, organic, grassroots opposition to what’s happening in Minneapolis and across the country. I myself have seen that most of the public opposition is not organized by advocacy groups. It is everyday people who are coming out and speaking out against what’s happening.I am a pop-culture aficionado and I have just been so entertained by folks who are like, Click here to learn why I didn’t date this person. Then you click on it and it’s like, Call your senator, abolish ICE. And that’s gone viral. And that really speaks to the moment we’re in.It is so different from the first Trump administration, partly because many of the organizations are on the ground helping day-to-day people and are being targeted by the administration. And so it’s created a whole new world of champions for immigrants in their communities. And it’s been really amazing to see. And so all he has is to talk about the posters.Sargent: This time there’s more energy around immigration than we’ve seen among the sort of broad center left in a long time. Usually the right is the place where all the energy is on immigration. And this is something new, I think, as well. There’s gotta be, though, a real effort to convert that into votes for Democrats, don’t you think?Parada: I really believe that all the mobilizing that’s happening to call your member of Congress will turn into energy to turn people out to vote. Democrats need to have a message that keeps the support there, that sustains it, that supports where people are at. But what is happening on the ground is just so appalling to people that it doesn’t feel like it’s just about immigration—it feels like it’s more about sustaining our democracy.It’s really like ... “I can’t believe this is our country” is pretty much what I hear across the board. It’s not like, “How do I feel about immigrants?” And so I think that they have used immigration as a means to hack away at the Constitution and our democracy. And people are seeing it and are just completely motivated by it and horrified that this is our country.We are exceeding where we were at family separation. When family separation was happening, it was wall-to-wall coverage. Cindy McCain was on TV saying that it’s outrageous and they needed to stop what they were doing.... I think the volume and the intensity of the opposition is so much larger now than it was under family separation.But also, it’s so much more impactful, like the human harm that is happening. Families are being separated, children are being harmed, detention centers are opening across the country, citizens are being beat up for fighting for their rights or just being a person of color driving to work in Minneapolis. And so it’s so much bigger in many ways—the impact of the policy itself, the gargantuan policies—and that also leads to a broader opposition because it impacts so many more people.Sargent: Lia Parada, it was a pleasure to talk to you. Thanks so much for coming on. I sure hope Democrats can convert this into a big change moment.Parada: I feel the same way. Thanks for having me on, Greg.
A Truth From Iran to Minneapolis: Weak Governments Kill Protesters
“This is not who we are,” many well-meaning public officials said last week in various statements. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials’ assassination of 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Pretti has been a shock to the American system, causing even sleepy Democrats to call for abolishing ICE and firing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.But this shocked response obscures a much more troubling truth: As horrifying as Pretti’s murder was, it was not an anomaly. The killing of mother-of-three Renee Good just 17 days prior, also in the streets of Minneapolis, was not an anomaly. The problem is bigger than Minneapolis, bigger than ICE, and bigger than Trump. And it’s not just a matter of police brutality in general. Violence against protesters is on the rise in the United States and all over the world, reflecting a horrifying escalation of authoritarianism and an elite disregard for basic democratic freedoms. Amnesty International cites “misuse of force” by the state as one of many trends making it harder, around the world, to “stay safe while making your voice heard.” In 2024, an international group of researchers—affiliations included University of California–Berkeley and the European University of Madrid—found a global rise in the use of dangerous weaponry against protesters.In Iran early this month, at least 5,200 people and possibly many more were killed by government forces during widespread protests. Raha Bahreini, an Iran expert for Amnesty International, has called it “a state-orchestrated massacre,” unprecedented even for this repressive regime. (As horrific as this situation is, it is rich for President Trump to threaten the Iranian regime with bombing for killing protesters, while his masked goons kill people on the streets of Minneapolis.) It’s easy to recognize Iran’s government as a totalitarian one, and Trump’s disregard for democratic freedoms is also well known. Trump seems proud of his disregard for such freedoms, threatening protesters with “very heavy force” and consistently labeling them, without evidence, as domestic terrorists. But violent crackdown on protest is not limited to these obvious bad actors. More than 2,000 climate and environmental protesters have been killed around the world since 2012, University of Bristol researchers found in 2024—including in Atlanta, where Manuel Esteban Paez Terán, known as “Tortuguita,” was killed by state troopers in 2023, the first time an environmental protester had been killed in the U.S. In 2024, although protests had reached their lowest point since 2020, the rate of police intervention in protests was higher than it had been in years, especially at protests related to Palestine. I asked Oscar Berglund, one of the Bristol researchers who co-authored the paper on the attacks on environmental protesters, why he thought this was happening. He attributes it to the fact that many of these protests—whether over racism, economic inequality, or climate change—have serious traction. Recent years have seen “an increase in protest, and some of that protest has shifted public opinion quite dramatically,” he said. The violence is a sign of the protesters’ success—that ruling elites know that the protesters aren’t just a bunch of marginal kooks but may be speaking for, and influencing, millions more. Berglund also had another general observation that seems resonant, whether in Tehran or in Minneapolis. “Repression often increases when efforts to legitimize ‘things as they are’ have been less effective,” he said. “States with decreasing legitimacy will therefore resort to repression.”Sarah McLauglin, a senior scholar at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, affirmed Berglund’s analysis: “From Tiananmen decades ago to Tehran today,” she said, “ governments have violently cracked down on public protest because they understand that protest has power—perhaps even enough power to unseat public officials.” She thinks protest is, if anything, growing more powerful as a social force because it is so easily disseminated on social media, “where information can travel faster than the state can respond. That’s exactly what happened after the killing of Alex Pretti, where the immediate narrative conveyed by U.S. officials fell apart” because people could see with their own eyes, on their phones, what had really happened. In past eras—putting aside moments of great upheaval, like revolutions or wars—there has often been a sense that protest is futile, performative, a waste of time. Paradoxically, the recent killings and violence against protesters may suggest the opposite: that protest is, in fact, effective. Today, around the world, the threats to protesters are multiplying—but so is the support. Protesters’ concerns are not seen as niche or silly but, rather, are broadly shared. From protests to polls, the ruling class is increasingly confronted by the possibility that there is, in fact, a global consensus against injustice, for democracy, for climate action, and for basic humanity. These movements aren’t going away. That’s encouraging, suggesting that we can someday unseat these bad actors. It’s also terrifying, because as our governments continue to desperately spiral into illegitimacy, they may kill more and more of us. Yet as we’re seeing from Minneapolis to Tehran, an amazing number of people are confronting both these realities right now—and choosing hope.
Headlines
945 headlinesKidnapped at Sea: Thiago Ávila Reveals Brutality Inside Israel’s Detention System Chris Hedges Report
The Hidden History Of Juneteenth
FIFA Reinforces ICE Repression While Targeting Iran, Haiti And Africa
Flotilla Activists' Harrowing Experience in an Israeli Torture Dungeon Revealed (w/ Thiago Ávila) | The Chris Hedges Report
From Cell to Cell, Jailed Minnesota Unionists Sang of Freedom
How (and When) to Build a Union Reform Caucus: Advice from a Grocery Worker
‘His only crime is that he is a Palestinian doctor’
Over 160 Years After Abolition, Racism Still Structures US Economy
Rural areas lag behind in cancer treatment and prevention – even as rich, urban areas increasingly leave dying from cancer in the rearview
DIY zines are helping queer communities tell their own stories and craft their own culture
Page 1 of 95